For many, the United Nations is something to be revered. Some see it as a precursor to a successful world-wide government. Others view it as a benevolent organization that strives for peace and equality. Unfortunately, these idealistic dreams about the U.N. are just that - dreams. The grim reality is the United Nations has clear political aspirations, cannot, or will not, intervene in many world affairs, is controlled by liberal demagogues and representatives of dictators, and lacks the guts necessary to tackle real problems.
Many people regard the United Nations as some magical elixir for world dilemmas. For example, Benjamin Barber, the author of the book "McWorld vs. Jihad," spoke on this campus last year. In his speech, Barber expressed his sorrow that the United States is ignoring the United Nations, particularly in regard to the war in Iraq. He said we should work through the "saintly" United Nations and not unilaterally.
Liberals like Barber are easy to spot. They all follow the same format: 1. Use some leftist clich? like United States unilateral action. 2. Conveniently ignore that the U.S. spent months trying to obtain United Nations approval. 3. Bask in the applause of gleeful members of the Progressive Student Alliance and other ignorant liberal student organizations. The only thing that Barber proved is that just because you have a Ph.D. does not necessarily mean you possess any common sense.
The truth that many liberals love to ignore is that the United Nations is morally corrupt. It is an organization that has countries like Libya and Syria heading its Human Rights Commission. For those of you that do not know, Libya and Syria are run by a combination of ruthless dictators and Islamic terrorists. For instance, the terrorist group Hezbollah practically runs the country of Syria. From this safe haven, these terrorists shell Israeli cities, killing civilians. Also, the fact that law and order, democracy and civil rights are nearly unheard of in these two countries apparently does not disqualify them from this privileged position in the progressive United Nations.
The United Nation is not only a place where evil oppressive dictators receive praise, but also one in which other nations can bash the United States at will. For example, before the United States invaded Iraq, France tried to court key votes in the Security Council to oppose United States action. This effectively turned the floor of the United Nations into a giant festival of anti-American sentiment. What was France's motivation besides jealousy and hatred? They also had deals with Husein for oil and feared a U.S. led invasion would end their illegal monopoly.
Thus, France used the United Nations to oppose the liberation of 25 million people for oil, a very humane democratic stance indeed. You would think the French would be more sympathetic to liberation. If it had not been for the bravery of the United States in World War II, it's possible they would be goose-stepping and speaking German today.
The United Nations has not contributed to the solving of several world crises to the extent that it should have. Millions of people died in the violence in Rwanda, yet the United Nations sent little help.
People were, and still are, being oppressed and starving to death in Somalia while the United Nations only sent food that was stolen by warlords. The United States had to send soldiers to deliver the food after the United Nations neglected to send peacekeepers to keep the warlords away. The suffering of these American soldiers depicted in the movie "Black Hawk Down," was a direct result of U.N. incompetence.
Sometimes the U.N. is so incompetent it cannot even reinforce its own resolutions. It has passed 12 years worth of resolutions that banned weapons of mass destruction in Iraq but never followed up on them.
Instead of supporting the U.S. in ridding the world of an oppressive dictator, freeing millions of people, ending horrendous crimes against humanity, fighting terror, ensuring world security and actually supporting its own resolutions the "United" Nations followed a different approach.
The United Nations allowed itself to be hijacked by anti-American French and Germans, and then accused the U.S. of unilateral action after we bent over backwards to appease them.
Now the United Nations wants us to hand over control of Iraq to them. This organization should have no say regarding the matters of a country it refused to help liberate.
I would even go so far as to say that we should boycott the United Nations until it finds the integrity and resolve to be the world leader it should be.
